User talk:Twarikh e Khalsa/sandbox

@[edit]

@Twarikh e Khalsa Hey, so I have a old draft space of my work that includes quite a bit of it that I can begin rewriting/working on from thenforth on. I will post it here. Noorullah (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that works aswell Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will need some re-writing and copy editing, so your help with this project can be appreciated so that it may be suitable to post on the main Dost Mohammad Khan page.

Also recently I have contacted the authors and publishers of both books (State and Tribe) and Lee 2019 toward possibly having them re-license and/or otherwise approve such for the matter, so that can help.

I think it is also appropriate to notify those who removed the revisions about us working on this, so pinging these individuals: @User:Premeditated Chaos @Lee Vilenski and @User:AirshipJungleman29 Noorullah (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some work beginning can be to trimming down the First Anglo-Afghan War section(s) to more forwardly summarize said contents as though this page is more centered on Dost Mohammad Khan. However we should be careful of removing more relevant background information. I believe the main issue of infringement especially was in the First Anglo-Afghan war section I wrote rather then much of the rest of the article. Noorullah (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, no! This material was removed and revision-deleted for being copyrighted. You can't just bring it back in a sandbox and make some light copyedits. It needs to be fully rewritten from scratch to avoid any issues with copyright and plagiarism. Pinging @Diannaa to have a look as well please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then we will proceed as such to re-write the page. @Premeditated Chaos Noorullah (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As above. I would suggest starting from scratch, and forgetting about any hope that publishers will rescind copyright to a book published four years ago. Premeditated Chaos the current sandbox is still pretty much entirely plagiarism, btw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, really? I thought this version was copied from the last good version of the article. I'm going to have to nuke it wholesale then. Since you're familiar with the contours of the plagiarism, can you have a look at User:Noorullah21/Dost Mohammad Khan and see if there's any revisions I can retain? Some of the earlier ones look borrowed from the mainspace version, I just don't know where the problems come in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest good version is at this link, so precisely the tenth revision of the page Premeditated Chaos. The next edit introduces extremely close paraphrasing from Lee 2019. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, I've cleaned that sandbox as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos ... guess what. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. I temp undeleted the old bad version and compared it to the present one on Earwig, which shows about 98% similarity between the two versions. I'm not as familiar with the paraphrasing here - is it pretty much the same? One large chunk of the article looks like it was copy/pasted from the First Anglo-Afghan War article so if there's issues with that content, there may be issues in that article. Diff for that insertion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The works are based off of Lal's Life of Dost Muhammad Khan; Burnes, Moorcroft, Harlan, etc (which is why the citations were to be added en masse) I already made a copy version for such (to add said citations) but I am just adding more of Harlans and Lal's as well as Greenwood, Kaye, Mowbray, (all of which are out of copyright). This was suggested by Jonathan Lee (to cut down citation use for his book when inquiried on Academia) Noorullah (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However I plan to add it all once the content in its form is completed. (mostly through sfns, and so it can be quoted easier.) Noorullah (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that being said, content beyond the First Anglo-Afghan War also did not seem to pose any copyright violations (after checking), and if possibly supported would like to readd them?

The main large issue here was with the First Anglo-Afghan War section, which had some really close paraphrasing compared to the rest of the article. (And which is why I base plated the first anglo afghan war main page sections here for now) so that we can write off that more closely and also keep it somewhat contained to not overload information (like I had done), but also provide context and keep it informative as the content of the page expands. Noorullah (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos it's pretty much the same level of copyright—i.e., all of it. Noorullah suggests above that the sections that weren't on the first Anglo-Afghan war are fine; this is blatantly false. I've just checked the Reign in Kabul section, and within the first paragraph, there's already considerable WP:CLOP with Noelle 1997. I don't really know if preventative measures need to be taken, but Noorullah's comments above show that they don't understand what copyright really is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Noelle right now and I'm honestly not really seeing what I would call a considerable level of close para. Normally when we call something too-close paraphrasing, it's going to have multiple sentences or even paragraphs with extremely similar wording and structure to the source, and usually only with synonyms subbed out. I'm not seeing that here. Maybe I'm just not looking at the right thing, and it doesn't help that the draft lacks citations to specific page numbers. Can you do side-by-side quotes of what you think are a few of the most egregious examples so I can see what you're looking at? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the following examples:

Article: "Dost Mohammad pointed out that his grandfather, Hajji Jamal Khan, was the strongest of candidates among the Pashtuns before intervention by Sabir Khan";

source: "those in favour of Dost Mohammad's kingship emphasised that his paternal grandfather Haji Jamal Khan had been the strongest candidate for leadership prior to the intervention by Sabir Shah"

Article: "Ahmad Shah Durrani did not choose a title of religious legitimacy during his ascension, instead, adopting the title, Durr-I-Dauran, meaning "Pearl of the Age";

source: "Ahmad Shah was given the title durr-i-dauran, meaning "pearl of the age". Rather than giving religious legitimacy, the title..."

Article: "By 1832, Dost Mohammad fielded an army of over 9,000 Cavalrymen, and 2,000 Infantrymen, considered to be the strongest in Afghanistan during the time";

source: "By 1832 his army consisted of 9,000 cavalry and 2,000 infantry and was considered the strongest military force in Afghanistan."

Article: " Although Dost Mohammad controlled Bamiyan, the routes leading were controlled by independent Hazara chiefdoms. In the east of his realm, the extent of his rule ended at Jagdalak pass... Jalalabad and Laghman being controlled by Muhammad Zaman Khan and Abd-Al-Jabbar Khan... Amir Muhammad exercised direct control over the city, and it is unknown if he submitted revenue payments to Dost Mohammad."

Source: "Although Dost Mohammad Khan controlled Bamiyan, the routes leading there were in Hazara hands. In the east, his supremacy ended at the Jagdalak Pass. Jalalabad and Laghman remained under the authority of Nawwab Muhammad Zaman Khan and Nawwab Abd-Al-Jabbar Khan ... Amir Muhammad exercised 'absolute power' at Ghazni and it is doubtful whether he submitted revenue payments to Dost Mohammad Khan."

These are from the (conveniently uncited) first two paragraphs of the Reign in Kabul section. Despite the fact that the WP:CLOP is evident, but the minor cosmetic changes (swapping synonyms and verb subjects) often means that what the article says isn't actually supported by the source (see the change between "Dost Mohammad pointed out" and "those in favour of Dost Mohammad's kingship emphasised"). Hope that helps, Premeditated Chaos ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, I see where you're coming from. The earlier examples aren't so bad but the latter two are quite egregious (and of course it's the latter one especially that I didn't get to when reading yesterday).

Noorullah, can you see the problem now? The wording you put in Wikipedia needs to be completely your own. You can't take sentences and paragraphs someone else wrote and make little tweaks and think that's acceptable. The paragraph starting with "Although Dost Mohammad controlled Bamiyan" is especially obviously taken from the source. I'm going to nuke this draft again. If you resurrect it again with this kind of close paraphrasing (or put close paraphrasing like this anywhere else), I am going to block you to prevent further copyright issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And other copyright issues were raised at WP:CCI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]